Pacific Spirit Marine Institute
Thursday, July 5, 2007
The old joke ‘if you want to feel like a real woman, then wash this shirt and get me a beer’ may actually have more truth to it than we previously thought.
I don’t mean to imply men don’t do laundry. But, the constant contact with household cleaners usually does fall upon the human female. So it’s remarkable to find a connection between a class of toxic chemicals widely used in household detergents and the feminization of male fish.
This development has been studied for about the last 10 years. Nonylphenol ethoxylates, (NPE) known as estrogenic, means contact with this chemical will actually stimulate the production of estrogen.
There’s some irony! Maybe washing shirts really does make me feel more like a woman.
I don’t know if the mature male fish that carry eggs in their testes exhibit female behavior, but eggs in the reproductive system is definitely a female trait.
Canada and Europe have tighter restrictions imposed on the use of NPEs than the US.
In the US the answer to the use of these toxic class chemicals appears to be awarding certificates, maybe bronze plaques to companies that voluntarily commit to the use of safer substitutes for NPEs. How’s that for feminization? Why not a nice scrapbook page for their memory book too?
Voluntarily reducing the use of toxic chemicals is a ‘good thing’ as Martha Stewart would say. Procter & Gamble and Unilever have voluntarily substituted NPE’s with other chemicals in their products. Wal-Mart is still trying to hop on the green-train by rewarding companies it does business with that find alternatives to NPEs.
The Sierra Club thinks it’s time the EPA takes action to restrict or ban the use of this class of chemical.
Feminized or intersex fish have been found nearly everywhere. This leads me to agree with the idea that more than on estrogen stimulating, endocrine blocking chemical is being introduced into the environment and in more than one way.
Meanwhile, male salmon are loosing their urge to swim up stream, and becoming more amiable to staying home with the kids and keeping house.
More tomorrow on Phthalates, Nonylphenol ethoxylates, the Feminization of Marine life and the Human Male.
Labels: Canada, FDA, Feminization, Nonylphenol ethoxylates, Ocean, Ocean Habitat, PVC, Phthalates, Plastic, Poison, Polar Bear, Polar Bears, Salmon, Testicular Dysgenesis Syndrome, USA, Wal-Mart, Whales
© 2009, Pacific Spirit Marine Institute.
Feminized Intersex Fish, Deformed Male Penis, Hermaphroditic Whales. Linking estorgen stimulating, endocrine blocking chemicals.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
By now we’ve all heard the story about the woman in Ellsworth, Maine that dropped a Compact Florescent Light bulb (CFL) on her daughters’ bedroom floor.
Brandy Bridges realized the bulb contained mercury and called the store where it was purchased. They recommended she call poison control who referred her to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection which directed her to call an environmental clean up crew that gave her a $2,000.00+ estimate to clean up the mercury mess.
So how much mercury does one of these bulbs contain? So much that the broken CFL left 6 times the safe level of mercury in the Bridges’ bedroom.
Each CFL contains 5 milligrams of mercury, at the Maine “safety” standard of 300 nanograms per cubic meter, it would take 16,667 cubic meters of soil to “safely” contain all the mercury in a single CFL.
Given the fact that we already know that mercury is dangerous and highly toxic, that it can cause brain damage and leaning disabilities, what is creating this Herculean push to install literally 10’s of billions of these bulbs across the globe?
The move to ban incandescent lights in favor of CFL’s is being considered in California as well as Canada, Australia parts of the EU, and many other states in the US. The Capitol Hill complex in the US is currently in the process of replacing 20,000 incandescent bulbs with these CFL’s. These account for only the ‘desk lamps’.
What is going on? These CFL’s have been on the market for nearly 30 years. It is unrealistic to imagine consumers will dispose of these bulbs at hazardous waste collection sites. How will all the consumers be educated on the safe use and disposal of these bulbs? How many of these CFL’s will be purchased after the consumer realizes the hazards involved?
If our incandescent bulbs are banned we won’t have a choice. What really is behind this push to create more mercury hazards after so many years of trying to eliminate the mercury hazards?
Only two possibilities jump to my mind. Either global warming is moving far more rapidly than we are being told, or the monetary profits associated with these CFL’s is beyond imagination.
The skeptic in me says it’s both.
Labels: Compact Florescent Light, Ewaste, Global Warming, Mercury, Toxic Ewaste, Wal-Mart
© 2009, Pacific Spirit Marine Institute.
Compact Florescent Lights Part III: Casting a Shadow
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
We looked at Wal-Mart’s drive to sell 100 million Compact Florescent Light bulbs by the end of 2008 yesterday. Although these lights have been on the market since 1977 and they produce 450 pounds fewer greenhouse gas emissions than incandescent bulbs why haven’t they taken off?
These bulbs sound like a good idea to me, yet only 6% of homes today are using CFL’s. Saving $30.00 in energy costs over the life of each bulb sounds like a good idea too.
My mother, who grew up during the depression always said, “waste not want not”. These bulbs certainly aren’t wasting any energy. I can still see my mother standing in the middle of my room, pointing a long bony finger at the light burning in my ceiling, asking one of her favorite questions,”did you turn off the light when you left the room?”
Dear mom was by no means a conservationist; she was however highly tuned into conserving her money. Now when I leave a room I always turn off the light.
I like to think I’m a conservationist. I know I do less than some, but I’m pretty sure I do a lot more than others to keep my presence on this earth a small one.
Today I am satisfied to please my mother posthumously. I also enjoy feeling like I’m ’sticking it to the man’ by not paying him unnecessary electricity money and I’m doing my part to reduce my carbon footprint. Besides all that, I’m just plain cheap!
It really isn’t clear to me how much money I’m really going to be saving by using the CFL’s since I’m already a miser in the 3rd degree. I’m not clear on just how many pounds of greenhouse gases my lights are actually contributing to the planet either. Like I said, I’m a tightwad.
There are some drawbacks as well as payoffs in using these CFL’s in spite of their reduced energy use. They contain Mercury.
This begs the question of how much mercury are we going to leave in the landfills when millions of us throw these CFL’s away?
Tomorrow we will look at the mercury and disposal issues surrounding these nifty little money and energy savers!
Labels: CFL's, Compact Florescent Light, Ewaste, Global Warming, Mercury, Toxic Ewaste, Wal-Mart
© 2009, Pacific Spirit Marine Institute.
Compact Florescent Bulbs Part II: Are You Shinning Me On?
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Why does Wal-mart want to put compact florescent light bulbs into 100 million homes by 2008.
Wal-Mart is hoping its 200 million shoppers will pick up these energy saving bulbs. But, just how much energy do these bulbs actually save?
There are clearly conservation advantages to these lights, though I’ve never looked on Wal-Mart as being a green company concerned with the well being of the communities in which they operate. Compact florescent lights use 75% less energy than regular incandescent bulbs and they last 10 times longer.
The loss of sales of 9 incandescent for every 1 compact florescent (CFL) would give pause to anyone, as jaded as I, when it comes to following the money trail. So what is the pay off for companies such as Wal-Mart that are known for their keen sense of the bottom line?
These CFL’s are 8 times more expensive than incandescents. In spite of this, the consumer would save about $30.00 in energy costs over the life of each bulb. These CFL’s also produce about 450 pounds fewer greenhouse gases.
These bulbs have been on the market for a couple of decades and only around 6% of homes currently use them. They are weird looking, they give off an odd light, and they cost 8 times more than incandescents so it’s no big wonder why, as yet, they haven’t caught on.
The rise in energy costs over the years has created conservation through necessity. Even if some people aren’t taking on the whole global warming, climate change crusade, they are taking up the idea of lowering their monthly energy bills.
We’ll explore this subject more tomorrow. In the mean time,
Turn off those lights when you are out of the room. It will keep you cooler in the summer time too!
Labels: CFL's, Compact Florescent Light, Ewaste, Global Warming, Mercury, Toxic Ewaste, Wal-Mart
© 2009, Pacific Spirit Marine Institute.
Wal-Marts Pushing Compact Florescent Light Bulbs…CFL’s
